Imminent Supreme Court 2nd amendment ruling: Last minute thoughts

The US Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs. Washington, DC, the infamous DC Handgun Ban Case, is due today, tomorrow or Monday. That, plus the hours I've spent in recent days on trains, which have given me time to ponder, have got me to thinking about the likely effect on the soon-to-be-known ruling.

I'm no Supreme Court buff, nor am I a lawyer, so I'm slightly reluctant to handicap the ruling. On the other hand, what are opinion blogs for, if not to take a flyer from time to time? I've read and listened to the oral argument and read many of the briefs, rulings of various federal appeals courts, as well as a portion of the voluminous news reports, historical writings and speculations.

Anyway, I've come to the conclusion, along with most court watchers, that the court is likely to go completely against long-standing and repetitive precedent (so much for Roberts' and Alito's assurances during their confirmations) and find that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense (despite the fact that the amendment makes no mention of self-defense, focusing instead on "a well regulated Militia...").

Further, I think the Court is likely to throw out DC's handgun ban, which will also bring down the few other such municipal bans currently extant. But, and here's the critical and hopeful thing, the court is likely to state that firearms possession is subject to reasonable regulation by federal, state and local authorities (handgun bans being, in the Court's view, beyond reasonable).

Know what? I'd consider such a ruling a victory for public safety, for common sense and for the gun violence prevention community. Why? It would remove the debate about guns and gun violence from the static and useless 2nd amendment arena and put it squarely in the 'reasonableness' arena, unencumbered by the 2nd amendment argument that the gun industy and lobby and chicken-hearted legislators and pols hide behind. I'm totally comfortable placing debates and decisions about gun legislation and laws in that arena, where the issue of public safety will be supreme.

I would love to have the public, media and legislative bodies discuss and decide measures simply on their merits, contrasting likely lives and public finances saved versus the reasonableness of regulation. We win the bulk of those tests.

For instance, how is it unreasonable to limit purchasers to 13 handguns per year, in order to dramatically diminish the illegal trafficking of handguns that fuels the criminal market? Or, how is it unreasonable to require that all firearms purchases, including at gun shows, be accompanied by an effective background check, to ensure that criminals cannot buy guns free and clear? Or, how is it unreasonable to prohibit civilians from purchasing military weapons made to destroy material targets like passenger aircraft, refineries, chem plants and rail tank cars from long distance? The gun violence prevention community wins the reasonableness test on these and other measures.

Yes, I'd hate to see the wishes of the citizens of DC, Chicago and other municipalities that have chosen to ban handguns be overruled by an archaic (written decades before rapid-fire, concealable handguns and military-style assault weapons were even thought of) and vague one-sentence Amendment. But, such a ruling would, if I get it right, also deep-six the ridiculous and dangerous gun lobby mantra that individuals have a completely unfettered right to possess firearms and take away the 2nd Amendment hiding place that has allowed public officials to avoid acting to protect the public.